geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: [vote] XBean donation
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:38:07 GMT

On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>> How can XBean be out of scope but modules/kernel is not?
>>> If we're going to switch Geronimo over to XBean, then yes, it's  
>>> in scope.  But the answers to my question never said that.  It  
>>> was "ServiceMix and Jetty depends on it" or whatever.
>> Never?
>>>> XBean is a
>>>> better that, including solving a number of problems that we're
>>>> currently facing (such as, say, serialized objects).  I'm eager to
>>>> start integrating the code.
>>> Fantastic.
>>> Essentially I asked "What are we going to do w/ XBean in Geronimo?"
>>> That was the answer I was looking for - thanks for just saying it  
>>> plainly and clearly.
>>> Amen.
>> On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:57 AM, James Strachan wrote:
>>> It is a very useful core piece of technology
>>> and quite a lot of us are pretty excited to work with it in Geronimo
>> What's not plain and clear about this?
> While I don't think there is much upside to continuing this thread  
> since I already thanked Aaron for being clear and direct and this  
> finally achieves what I had hoped for last summer (XBean back in  
> Geronimo) I'll note that the full response from James was :
>   "ActiveMQ, Jetty, OpenEJB, ServiceMix are all
>   using it as an optional lightweight kernel for
>   efficient and concise configuration and deployment
>   in Spring-ish ways.  It is a very useful core
>   piece of technology and quite a lot of us are
>   pretty excited to work with it in Geronimo"
> I think the part you omitted was important - I read it to be more  
> about the fact that since it's used by ActiveMQ, OpenEJB and  
> ServiceMix, he was excited to keep working with it in that context  
> here in Geronimo.

I see your frame of reference now.  Thanks.

> Sorry about that.  If this still not clear to you, I'm happy to  
> state :
>   When I asked for a public statement of intent
>   after the vote was already tallied, I did
>   misunderstand James' answer to mean something
>   different than "we're going to switch the Geronimo
>   kernel over to XBean".  I apologize for the
>   misunderstanding.

That is the intent, certainly.  The actual "how" is very likely to  
yield much more discussion :)

> I hope this puts this finally to rest.

Works for me.


View raw message